The Merits of Thin and Light

What do you guys think about the pursuit of thin and light the smartphone design?

I, personally, don't like it at all. First of all, there are merits to weight even without considering the design possibilities. For example, I like to know which pocket my phone is in. With a heavier case, it's very easy for me to tell just by the weight in my pocket. When I had to go without a case for a few days, the phone got lost very easily--I had to check in all my pockets manually rather than just sensing the weight. It got very annoying very quickly.

Increased weight and thickness also allows for a more durable phone. Engineers could pick materials for their durability rather than their weight, and the heaviest part of the phone, the battery, could also get a significant boost. We could probably have all day battery life already if we just allowed for phones to be 260g instead of insisting on a standard of roughly 130g. That's like holding the weight of two apples (no pun intended) rather than one. I invite everyone reading this to actually try doing this: pick up two apples (or roughly 9 CDs, if you have those around instead) and hold it like you would a phone for a few minutes while you read the rest of this post (that means with your arm bent close to you--don't hold it out like a gorilla). That's roughly 250-300 grams.

That brings me to my next point: this whole competition over thickness and weight is stupid to begin with. Apple pretty much singlehandedly convinced us that it matters--not even by comparing it to competitors, but by comparing it to older generations. My 4 year old brother can hold up an iPad in a thick protective case for an hour. Surely a four year old boy isn't stronger than grown men and women? You can see how ridiculous this is when you look at Apple's own claims about the iPhone 5: they say "iPhone 5 is 20 percent lighter and 18 percent thinner than iPhone 4S." What they don't tell you is that the weight difference is almost completely negligible--28 grams. That's like holding 4 CDs instead of 5 CDs. Does anyone really complain "Oh goodness, I just love my iPhone, except when I hold it, I quickly grow exhausted from it's simply massive weight."

Speaking of which, check up on those apples/CDs in your hand really quick. That last paragraph, if you read roughly at the speed you read out loud, should have taken about a minute. Do your arm muscles burn from holding those objects? Doubtfully. Sure, it's perceptibly more than your average smartphone, but not painfully so.

The next part of this is addressing thickness. Does a thinner design really benefit anyone? Sure, it's an advertising point--but that doesn't really help consumers? I can understand not wanting an inch-thick block, since that considerably limits how much you can reach on the phone's actual screen. But we're starting to see phone manufacturers go from nine or ten millimeters to seven and then brag about it (for readers of the United States, that's about a tenth of an inch). That's the thickness of a coin. Manufacturers are sacrificing battery life in order to reduce their phones by the thickness of a coin? That just seems silly. A 15 hour battery life at full brightness would sell to me far better than saying "1mm less than the next phone!"

Finally, most phones are thrown into a case anyway. That pretty much negates any thin/light argument you could have. The fact that Lifeproof and Otterbox are doing so well is proof that a significant portion of smartphone owners would gladly double up on thickness and weight to gain a bit of protection. Even a thin TPU case adds a mm or two to the thickness of the phone and a dozen grams--by Apple's advertising standards, that's a shock 10-20% increase in thickness and a 10% increase in mass!

Sill holding those apples/CDs/whatever weighs 250-300 grams? Does it hurt yet? Probably not. It probably won't ever hurt. It probably doesn't even really register anymore as something you're doing. I typed this out with one hand, holding 9 CDs in the other. It still doesn't hurt. I'd gladly hold an extra 5 CDs worth of mass to get all day battery.

With that being said, is there really any benefit to making thinner and lighter phones?

I think you can argue that the thin and light philosophy gives more choice to consumers. If they wish they can use an extended battery and case to get more battery life and durability. However the reverse isn't possible for phones which start off thick and heavy.

Having said I don't have any particular liking for thin phones beyond a point. If someone made a 10-11 mm phone with better features than an 8mm phone I would seriously consider it.

First is just relative comfort over longer periods -- it's not any kind of pain you'd worry about. Try holding a Lumia 920 versus an iPhone 5 and you'll notice that the iPhone 5 is gentler on your wrists.

Also, don't neglect the value of thinness, to a point, for pockets. You may want something that reminds you that your phone is in your pocket: try telling a woman with skinny jeans (or stereotypical hipsters) that she shouldn't mind a thick phone, at least if she keeps her phone in her pocket. And if she doesn't... well, thicker phones mean less space for other things you'd want to carry in a purse.

I agree we shouldn't rush to have thinness for its own sake, but at the same time, giant batteries can be a pain. Ask a RAZR MAXX HD owner who ends up waiting longer than usual to charge.

That brings me to my next point: this whole competition over thickness and weight is stupid to begin with. Apple pretty much singlehandedly convinced us that it matters--not even by comparing it to competitors, but by comparing it to older generations. My 4 year old brother can hold up an iPad in a thick protective case for an hour. Surely a four year old boy isn't stronger than grown men and women? You can see how ridiculous this is when you look at Apple's own claims about the iPhone 5: they say "iPhone 5 is 20 percent lighter and 18 percent thinner than iPhone 4S." What they don't tell you is that the weight difference is almost completely negligible--28 grams. That's like holding 4 CDs instead of 5 CDs. Does anyone really complain "Oh goodness, I just love my iPhone, except when I hold it, I quickly grow exhausted from it's simply massive weight."

Have you handled an iPhone 4S and an iPhone 5 at the same time? Maybe the differences is only 28 grams, but it feels significant. I think it's because the iPhone 5 crosses a threshold with respect to expectations; the 4S is a little heavier than you anticipate before you pick it up, where the 5 is a little lighter. Humans frequently make relative judgements which they confuse for absolute judgements, and in this case that results in the perception that the iPhone 4S is 'heavy' and the iPhone 5 is 'light', despite the fairly small absolute difference.

The iPhone 5's lower-than-anticipated weight manages to give it a slightly futuristic feel, like you might get handling a piece of carbon fiber or titanium sporting equipment when you're used to the steel version. This is really the main commercial purpose of chasing 'thin' and 'light' — to spur upgrades by giving the user the visceral impression that their current device is clunky and dated.

Have you handled an iPhone 4S and an iPhone 5 at the same time? Maybe the differences is only 28 grams, but it feels significant. I think it's because the iPhone 5 crosses a threshold with respect to expectations; the 4S is a little heavier than you anticipate before you pick it up, where the 5 is a little lighter. Humans frequently make relative judgements which they confuse for absolute judgements, and in this case that results in the perception that the iPhone 4S is 'heavy' and the iPhone 5 is 'light', despite the fairly small absolute difference.

The iPhone 5's lower-than-anticipated weight manages to give it a slightly futuristic feel, like you might get handling a piece of carbon fiber or titanium sporting equipment when you're used to the steel version. This is really the main commercial purpose of chasing 'thin' and 'light' — to spur upgrades by giving the user the visceral impression that their current device is clunky and dated.

I actually have held both at once--my naked iPhone 4S and a friend's naked 5. I could feel and see the difference when I had both, but when handling them separately (like if I borrowed it because my phone is dead) I could not notice the difference.

I do see some of the advantages of thin, as pointed out by some people here. Modern fashion simply doesn't allow for big pockets on some people. But the bolded part here is kind of silly. I should upgrade because I get an actually better user experience, not because I feel that a phone is better because of the weight. I mean, when reviews looked at the 140g iPhone 4 vs the 130-135g 3G/3GS, there were very few mentions of weight. When it did appear, they said things like

Quote:

the whole package seem tighter and denser. It feels great in your hand, with good heft...--Engadget

Wouldn't that imply that basically any change in weight can be spun as a positive? If the next generation iPhone were 140g again for some reason, you can bet that reviews would say things like "at first it was strange, but then I grew to like the increased feeling of heft--like I'm holding something of real value" rather than "the decreased weight makes it feel futuristic and new."

The premise of this thread is dumb. Faster, lighter, thinner, smaller...this is called progress. Twenty years from now computers will be nearly microscopic and implanted directly into our body to tap into our cerebral cortex.

I spend more time not using my phone than using it. It sits in my pocket without a case, and I like that it’s thin and light (it’s an HTC One S). When I pick it up, it feels good in my hand. It’s comfortable to hold. I love it. If it were uncomfortable I’d probably leave it on my desk and forget to take it with me all the time, which was the case for my previous phone (not a smartphone). I’m definitely sticking with light and slim.

When I have my workbag with me, I also have a tablet and external battery pack for the phone. That definitely reduces my phone requirements.

Light: It's always better to be lighter, given equivalent performance and capabilities. Can you hold a 140g phone in your hands for a long time? Yeah, obviously they're not 700g phones, and it should be pretty easy to do. OK, great. Now lie on your back in bed and hold it over your head to read, watch videos or play a game. Oh, snap, all of a sudden lightness matters.

Thin: For anybody who pockets their phone. I strongly believe in pocketing mine and with jeans or slacks, it's important to be thin enough to not be bulky. Is 9.2mm so much better than 9.5mm thick? Well, probably not, but thinness should be taken as a part of the package that allows the phone to slide easily into your pockets, yet be secure enough to hold without slipping out of your hands. Durability's a factor as well. Greater thinness is a virtue until as we soon reach the point of say 3-5mm, they won't get any thinner. I will agree that having an inflated thinness metric is worthless. I don't really care if *most* of the phone is 8mm thick when there's a 14mm protrusion or whatever. Honestly, people who put their phone into a purse or backpack can probably compromise on size.

First is just relative comfort over longer periods -- it's not any kind of pain you'd worry about. Try holding a Lumia 920 versus an iPhone 5 and you'll notice that the iPhone 5 is gentler on your wrists.

I actually think that the iPhone 5 is pretty painful to hold for long periods of time. My iPhone 4 in a case never felt that way to me. But the iPhone 5 tends to give me joint pain after a while. I don't think this has anything to do with the weight. I think it has more to do with the thinness, the width of the phone, and the slippery aluminum. All of these together mean that I have to grip the phone harder.

It's not awful pain. But I do find that I may tend to end my usage early as a result.

I'd put it in a grippy case, but cases tend to destroy the finish of my phones. And I do like the thinness when its in my pockets.

What do you guys think about the pursuit of thin and light the smartphone design?

I like it so far.

Quote:

I, personally, don't like it at all. First of all, there are merits to weight even without considering the design possibilities.

It's a matter of degree; what is too thin and too light?

Quote:

Increased weight and thickness also allows for a more durable phone.

I also have the choice of taking a too-thin and too-light phone, applying the case and battery pack of choice, and getting the necessary weight you prefer, as well as the all day battery life.

My iPhone 5 already gets all day battery life, but I can see it being valuable getting a battery case that increases the weight/thickness and gives me an extra 4 hours.

Quote:

That brings me to my next point: this whole competition over thickness and weight is stupid to begin with.

No, it isn't. It's helped Apple sell over a hundred million iPhones, so clearly it seems to be something consumers want. It just means you have a different set of criteria than most.

Quote:

Apple pretty much singlehandedly convinced us that it matters--not even by comparing it to competitors, but by comparing it to older generations. My 4 year old brother can hold up an iPad in a thick protective case for an hour. Surely a four year old boy isn't stronger than grown men and women? You can see how ridiculous this is when you look at Apple's own claims about the iPhone 5: they say "iPhone 5 is 20 percent lighter and 18 percent thinner than iPhone 4S." What they don't tell you is that the weight difference is almost completely negligible--28 grams. That's like holding 4 CDs instead of 5 CDs. Does anyone really complain "Oh goodness, I just love my iPhone, except when I hold it, I quickly grow exhausted from it's simply massive weight."

You seem to be missing the point. People don't buy it because it's easier to hold, they buy it because it's more desirable. Apple is showcasing this as a selling feature, but that isn't the reason they did it. If you look at their history of CE products since the 2001 iPod you will see that by making their devices and their packaging thinner and lighter and smaller they maximize the profit they make. For whatever reason people prefer smaller/thinner/lighter, and will pay extra for it.1) Apple wins by charging more2) Apple wins by cramming more per cubic foot in a shipping container or in their warehouse or their retail stores3) Apple wins by reductions in manufacturing and shipping

Quote:

The next part of this is addressing thickness. Does a thinner design really benefit anyone? Sure, it's an advertising point--but that doesn't really help consumers?

No, it really doesn't help consumers. It only helps Apple.

Quote:

I can understand not wanting an inch-thick block, since that considerably limits how much you can reach on the phone's actual screen. But we're starting to see phone manufacturers go from nine or ten millimeters to seven and then brag about it (for readers of the United States, that's about a tenth of an inch). That's the thickness of a coin. Manufacturers are sacrificing battery life in order to reduce their phones by the thickness of a coin? That just seems silly. A 15 hour battery life at full brightness would sell to me far better than saying "1mm less than the next phone!"

Apple isn't sacrificing battery life; what you mean is Apple has decided to keep battery life steady and reduce the size and weight of their phone. What you want is this, which gives us an 18 hour life, assuming you get 10 hours out of your current iPhone.

Quote:

Finally, most phones are thrown into a case anyway. That pretty much negates any thin/light argument you could have. The fact that Lifeproof and Otterbox are doing so well is proof that a significant portion of smartphone owners would gladly double up on thickness and weight to gain a bit of protection. Even a thin TPU case adds a mm or two to the thickness of the phone and a dozen grams--by Apple's advertising standards, that's a shock 10-20% increase in thickness and a 10% increase in mass!

Yes, but my iPhone 5 + case is still 20% lighter and 10% thinner than my iPhone 4 + case. I now have a phone + case that is more durable than a naked iPhone 4, but still thinner and lighter.

That's exactly what I want.

Quote:

With that being said, is there really any benefit to making thinner and lighter phones?

Making more money.

If people stop buying them, Apple will stop making them thinner/lighter/smaller. Over a decade of CE (and also seeing how Nintendo's and Sony's devices have succeeded) shows there are people willing to pay for both thinner/lighter/smaller and larger, so maybe you will get your iPhone Max this year with 5" screen, 11mm thickness, and 20 hour battery, assuming you're willing to pay a $100 premium over the iPhone 5S.

I don't think it does. Shaving a few tenths of a millimeter increases production cost and complexity more than it increases the retail value of the phones. Few people would notice a little bit of laziness in the design.

I don't think it does. Shaving a few tenths of a millimeter increases production cost and complexity more than it increases the retail value of the phones. Few people would notice a little bit of laziness in the design.

Shaving 20% of the size and weight means that where you used to ship 5 iPhones you can now ship 6, assuming packaging also shrinks appropriately.

Now imagine this applied to a pallet and cargo container. Instead of 500 iPhones you have 600; Your pallet is now 20% more profitable. Your cargo container, your warehouse, your inventory room, etc, is now 20% more profitable.

I mean, unless you're going to argue that manufacturing the smaller iPhone costs an extra $90 per iPhone, which would erase any profit gained.

The premise of this thread is dumb. Faster, lighter, thinner, smaller...this is called progress. Twenty years from now computers will be nearly microscopic and implanted directly into our body to tap into our cerebral cortex.

Not necessarily.

I agree this is progress and the way of the future, but sometimes it's coming at the expense of a technology that has struggled to keep up.

Can't find it at the moment, but I think it was a Techcrunch opinion piece lamenting the rush for lighter and thinner is hurting Apple's iPhone in the battery department.

One major, major benefit of a bigger phone like the S4 or Note 2 is that you get a whopping battery with it just because the space has opened up.

I don't think it does. Shaving a few tenths of a millimeter increases production cost and complexity more than it increases the retail value of the phones. Few people would notice a little bit of laziness in the design.

But not being 'lazy in the design' differentiated Apple and netted them billions.

I'm not sure about this. The box the iPhone comes in weighs about the same as the device itself, and is ~4x the volume, and the limiting factor of how many items you put on a pallet is the volume of the packaging. A bunch of devices in their packaging are packed into larger, stronger boxes (for iPads, I believe it's 5 per), and stacked on the pallet. My guess is that it would cost the same to ship empty packages as packages with devices by sea, and probably 60% of the cost by air.

If previously they could put in 20 iPhones into a carton and can now put in 24, and the number of cartons on a pallet stays the same, you have increased the profitability of the pallet.

And I have noticed as time has passed that Apple is shrinking their packages. I do believe two iPhone 5 boxes fit into the same volume as the iPhone box I got from 2007.

You did say that, but reducing the volume of the device by 20% does not (necessarily) reduce the size of the package by 20%. Additionally, shipping cost from China is a tiny fraction of the cost of the device. I think it costs something like $10/m^3 to move freight by ship from China to the US, and a pallet is ~8 m^3, so even if we say it's $100/m^3 or even $1000, the cost of shipping is irrelevant.

For example, the packaging for iPhone 5 is 28 percent smaller than the packaging for the original iPhone shipped in 2007. That means that up to 60 percent more iPhone 5 boxes fit on each shipping pallet and fewer boats and planes are used — resulting in fewer CO2 emissions.

For all Apple products, ave 5% of carbon footprint is transportation, with todays reduced packaging sizes, so it's not insignificant. Albeit a lot less than manufacturing (61%) or use (30%) but more than recycling or cloud (both 2%). Not many actual ships in that equation I'd say.

I don't want to quote your whole rebuttal, but now I do see some merits to decreasing size and weight--it offers consumers the choice of battery size/thickness/weight. My only problem with that is that it costs me extra money to make that choice, and I'm convinced that Apple could do it better in house (even if their products cost a ton, they are very good at making pretty devices that at least look, and generally are, high quality). I guess you can't win it all.

I don't want to quote your whole rebuttal, but now I do see some merits to decreasing size and weight--it offers consumers the choice of battery size/thickness/weight. My only problem with that is that it costs me extra money to make that choice, and I'm convinced that Apple could do it better in house (even if their products cost a ton, they are very good at making pretty devices that at least look, and generally are, high quality). I guess you can't win it all.

What you guys may not be seeing is that this is not remotely new in the mobile space. It long pre-dates the iPhone or even the widespread popularity if the iPhone.

Cell phones didn't really get useful until you had the right size (clumsily pocketable), right price and right capabilities coming together in the late 90's through the early 2000s. Key to doing that was shrinking elements of the design.

Does your competitor's radio require three chips? Somebody out there is falling over themselves to get that chipset down to 2, in order to cut chip cost by $2/phone, shrink PCB size and ultimately shrink phone size and cost. Iterate that over and over again, and you have an SoC, maybe some memory and your modern phone's PCB is tiny. The antenna has gone through tech refreshes over and over to allow it to shrink to the point where (outside 'antennagate') it's not even a consideration. If you think about it, you know the phone has to have antenna, but good luck finding it...

It's not really even over price.

If you want a cheap phone, you buy a phone intended for the bottom of the market/global emerging markets/last year's model. It might be a little bigger and specs will be a year out of date, but the size isn't going to be THAT much bigger and it'll be cheap.

If you want a really durable phone, there are two nice markets to supply that as well. You can either buy a ruggedized phone-- which is primarily useful for businesses that do stuff in the field and REALLY need ruggedness-- or you can put an otterbox or other meaningful protector on a smaller phone. You get the bulk back, but don't lose feature set. Or do what a lot of people do and split the difference with a workable case for moderate improvement in the durability area.

If you want long battery life, there are even phones and options for that. Moto specializes in phones with long battery life. If you're in the Apple camp, the iPhone has lots of aftermarket cases that include batteries. Not cheap, but they work. If you've got a phone with removable batteries, spares are an option, as are replacement OEM and aftermarket parts that add bulk in exchange for battery life.

Building a large, rugged phone with lots of battery life is going to take us several steps backwards in size. You're not talking about 2mm thickness-- it's going to be as brick-like as the rugged phones today. Most consumers just don't quite want a 15+mm phone, even if it's going to run for 3 days on battery and can survive a drop from 1m. It's going to be bulky as well as heavy. You have to have options for the bulk of consumers that retain the all-important metrics of pocketability and hand feel.

Try holding a Lumia 920 versus an iPhone 5 and you'll notice that the iPhone 5 is gentler on your wrists.

Queue the "Do you even lift, bro?" jokes here.

I do this all the time as I own a 920 and my parents both use iPhone 5. I also have a Nexus 4 as a work phone which is also a very light phone, I fail to notice any difference on my wrist and I'm hardly the working out type either.

I just held up a 15" mid-2010 Macbook Pro which weighs a whopping 5.6 pounds for a movie today on an ~8 hour bus ride (The Dark Knight Rises, for those that care). Not once did it falter in height, though I'll admit my wrists were a bit sore afterward. I mean, if I can hold up a 5.6 pound laptop for two hours, surely the average user can stand to take a 250-300 gram phone around.

On the other hand, I'm getting kind of sick of my Otterbox Defender as it is impossible to put into my pocket while sitting (and in generous jeans, not weird hipster tight ones) and even more impossible to take out. I'm thinking of switching to Lifeproof because of that. I'm definitely seeing merits to both sides here, though I am loathe to admit it.

First, the technical ability to make things thin/light. That's non-trivial, and over time (generally) we can build things smaller and smaller.

Second is the preference people hold for how big/small their devices are. Just because a device CAN be made thin/light, it doesn't mean they HAVE to be made that way. Hell, you can always just stick a bigger battery in it.

The revealed preference is for thinner, lighter devices. That may change, at some point in the future.

Slacks tend to be pretty light, so you'll notice a heavy phone that much more.

Traditional slacks actually tend to have more room in the thigh than properly fitting jeans. The pocket structure is also different, as they tend to be side seam (pockets tend to be deeper as a result).

I've got a 920. It's verging on being an issue in jeans. In work drag it's not a problem.